SANJAY KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High court (Lucknow bench) dated 13/9/1993 whereby Writ Petition No. 10117 of 1989 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the said writ petition the appellant had assailed the validity of the order dated 12/9/1989 discharging him from service as M. E. R (Technical) /nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps.

(2.) The appellant appeared in M. E. R. (Technical) Examination conducted by Headquarters Recruiting Zone, Lucknow on 24/1/1988. On the basis of the result of the said examination he was selected for recruitment as M. E. R. (Technical) /nursing Assistant in the Army Medical College. He was enrolled as M. E. R. (Technical) /nursing Assistant on 29/2/1988. At the time of enrolment a form is required to be filled on the basis of the answers to questions put to the person seeking enrolment. For the purpose of enrolment the enrolment form as prescribed by the relevant rules are filled. It is not disputed that at the time of his enrolment the appellant was being prosecuted before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control) , U. P, Lucknow for offences under S. 147, 452, 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The case of the respondents is that at the time of enrolment the appellant was asked the following question:

(3.) In the enrolment form it is recorded that the said question was answered by the appellant by the word "no". The enrolment form of the appellant was sent for verification to the District Magistrate, Lucknow. After verification the District Magistrate, Lucknow, by his letter dated 21/12/1988, informed the A. M. C. Centre and School about the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant. On receipt of the said communication from the District Magistrate, Lucknow, a show-cause notice dated 20/5/1989 was issued to the appellant whereby he was informed that it had come to the notice that the appellant was involved in a civil case and he had deliberately given false answers to the questions put to him by the enrolling officer regarding involvement in any civil case at the time of enrolment. The appellant was required to show cause why he should not be discharged from service on account of the same. The appellant in his communication dated 23/5/1989 admitted about the pendency of the criminal case against him but asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the same. After considering the said communication of the appellant the impugned order dated 12/9/1989 was passed whereby he was discharged from service under Army Rule 13 (3 (IV) as his service was no longer required. It appears that the order dated 12/9/1989 refers to clause (IV) of the table appended below Rule 13 of the Army Rules which contains three clauses. Clause (IV) of the said table enables discharge of a person enrolled under the Act but not attested who is considered as unlikely to become an efficient soldier and whose services are no longer required.